From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml3GR-0004fZ-9H for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:09:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D3298E0767; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:09:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.xen.linuxant.fr (mx1.linuxant.fr [87.98.143.218]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8218CE0767 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:09:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (93-136-207-128.adsl.net.t-com.hr [93.136.207.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: xavier) by mx1.linuxant.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B167F256E for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 18:09:44 +0200 (CEST) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 mx1.linuxant.fr B167F256E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gentooist.com; s=DKIM; t=1252426185; bh=mb/1xaaaFi2SKHuns5udD9XobYxVs6NrPaQUpYeKFF0=; l=4280; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=CxV3+KAeb1ASEL+gVkll55X18WuX+eyGFts1oP0m8InoqAhT8cH6kwj4Ip94PnU8z 4n6AqsZij7Uz0YtaQBU9eRrFJZjLmZ6lIwyEQVLW4lnACDBGnlqXTGlX/x3KbLfYzt K3lAkPSDmhEAVAovV6h3x/x6fdJH2GX21yw6eMlg= X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 mx1.linuxant.fr B167F256E DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=DomainKey; d=gentooist.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to: subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; b=Kg0rwLKWUMTTpzPl6EApFrX4pype62wG2daeUpisOVveJ++Jq2WLqn1ZJ12FncM5A Jrz6U0bEBMu681CDUHHGFiylLjsH0mpR9c+po2vtes+g4BiPAbRG+ux767eFAvtN2a/ HB7b/Byp4pY36razVL2cX2+lEnYi16JP//ws6sE= Message-ID: <4AA681C2.70304@gentooist.com> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:09:38 +0200 From: Xavier Parizet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Xen questions References: <4AA66C58.2080503@gentooist.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig5F9B4D3BD1A071718AA22081" X-Archives-Salt: de520d61-893a-40eb-8da9-a50380e39b1c X-Archives-Hash: 1081389b1817bbced0a3e9ad9207b6f7 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig5F9B4D3BD1A071718AA22081 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Heiko Wundram a =C3=A9crit : > On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:38:16 +0200, Xavier Parizet > wrote: >> - why 2.6.21 stays masked on ~arch (last entry in changelog date of >> 31/08/2008) ? >=20 > 2.6.21 was a forward-port done by some Gentoo-guys based on the > 2.6.18-kernel that was part of Xen 3.1.3 (IIRC). It's _old_, really old= , > that's why it's hardmasked. The current 2.6.18-based Xen-kernel ebuild = is > the kernel (patch) that's included with Xen 3.3 (again, IIRC). There ar= e no > newer _official_ Xen-kernels (at least none newer than 2.6.18), and the= > Gentoo-developers decided not to include a forward-port anymore, as it > quickly becomes unmaintainable when the version difference between kern= el > trunk and Xen kernel becomes larger. >=20 > There are forward-ports done by some other distributions (the 2.6.25 yo= u're > hinting at is the Xen-kernel forward port of the Debian-guys, IIRC). > Someone is rebasing the SuSE-forward-ports of the Xen-kernels to Gentoo= , > and is offering ebuilds for download here: >=20 > http://code.google.com/p/gentoo-xen-kernel/downloads/list >=20 > The kernels offered by the SuSE-developers are at most 1-2 minor revisi= ons > behind the current vanilla kernel (as far as i can tell). I've been usi= ng > those rebased SuSE-Xen-kernels productively on a Gentoo machine since q= uite > some time, and they've always been very stable. Hmmm for me it's quite ok to keep on with the 2.6.18 series, because i ha= ve soooooooo much things to deal with the servers (my pipe is full twice ^^)= , getting on the way with a new kernel compilation and having a downtime is= no more a possible thing as i've (for the moment, my pipe is full remember ?= ) no backup servers for my dns/mail/etc... I'm just wondering if this can be a= security issue ? Or is the "productivity gain" good enough to motive me f= or this, i take your words, pita ? >=20 >> - is someone still working on Xen in Gentoo ? >=20 > Yes. To convince you, Xen 3.4.1 took about a day (post release by the X= en > developers) to be included in ~x86-portage. You're learning me something, i was not aware of such a release... This m= akes me rethinking about the "productivity gain" of this new version ? I really l= ove having last versions of a software, if it implies a speedup... >=20 >> - i know about kvm, so is there any reason to migrate to KVM instead= of >> Xen ? >=20 > If you're currently using HVM, partially; HVM is in portage (and is als= o > maintained), so you wouldn't need to rely on outside ebuilds, but the > respective infrastructure for maintaining HVM-based machines from the > command-line is poor (there's no such thing as xm and init-scripts, whi= ch > can be a major PITA). If you're using para-virtualized kernels, then > definitely no, as HVM fully virtualizes all I/O (which degrades disk-IO= > considerably more than a paravirtualized Xen instance), unless you're > adventurous and willing to play with virtio-drivers, which I could neve= r > get completely stable. I'm not using HVM at all. All my guests are Gentoo ones, so no need for t= his. I'm using around one guests by provided services like name resolution, we= b server, mail, etc, etc... > YMMV, and HTH! Until now, very good results with this architecture ! And this helped me,= so keep on going ;) Many thanks. -- Xavier Parizet YaGB : http://gentooist.com GPG : C7DC B10E FC21 63BE B453 D239 F6E6 DF65 1569 91BF --------------enig5F9B4D3BD1A071718AA22081 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkqmgcoACgkQ9ubfZRVpkb+2LQCggUCtKVZ9kVHcb74T8y2wverJ O2IAn1SAxaNlEK89RGNazowzyCNT8J8Z =wV0l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig5F9B4D3BD1A071718AA22081--